Painful Truths

A bloody nose in Afghanistan

The British cannot believe that they are getting a bloody nose in Afghanistan. Day and night, British politicians and the media prattle on about how under-equipped their troops in Afghanistan are and how, if only they had more helicopters and more heavily armoured vehicles, they would not have lost 15 soldiers in a week.

Years of arrogance and cowardice have led the British to believe that they are invincible and that they can commit aggression and occupy other countries without losing a soul. Like their friends the  Americans and the Israelis, they have got used to shooting from high in the sky or from miles away with long-range artillery, cruise missiles and the like. But now they are coming to terms with the fact that sometimes you have to get out of your airborne, seaborne and armoured citadels and fight other men, face to face, like men. They are having to confront the truth of real warfare, and they don't like it.

I do not believe that any number of helicopters or armoured vehicles will help the British in Afghanistan. They have only to look at the fate of other invaders of that country to draw the right conclusion.

I have no sympathy for the Taleban. However, I truly believe that a country's internal problems can be solved only internally, by its own people, not by foreign invaders or quislings riding on the backs of  invaders' tanks. What exactly are the British fighting for, thousands of miles away from their homeland? Hamed Karzai and his corrupt gang of half-wits?

Sooner or later, the British and their American masters will leave Afghanistan and return home, defeated and humiliated. And the Afghan people will go back to square one and start to clear up the mess.

The British and the Americans, in the meantime, will have learnt - as their friends the Israelis will learn after them - that wars cannot be won by bombing wedding parties, schools, hospitals and ambulances with F-16 fighters and drones remotely operated from thousands of miles away.

Dogs and killers

Listening to BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme while driving home this evening, I heard that one listener had complained about the BBC giving more airtime to the news of two police dogs killed as a result of being shut in a police car on one of the hottest days of the year than to two British servicemen killed in action in Afghanistan.

The complainant thought that the soldiers' death deserved more attention than the dogs that were roasted alive in a car as a result of a police dog handler's negligence.

Why, I ask? How can the listener justify the argument that the soldiers' death was more deserving of airtime than that of the dogs?

I would argue the opposite. First, the soldiers had voluntarily chosen to join the armed forces. They were trained killers and they were in Afghanistan to kill. They were in a foreign country, not in their own country, not defending their homeland. They were there to kill and they were killed. Those who live by the word shall die by the sword. They must have known that when they joined the army. Or did they enlist to visit exotic places, meet strange people and kill them?

The police dogs, on the other hand, had no choice. Their human handlers had a duty of care towards them. The dogs trusted their handlers but were betrayed. They died painfully, cruelly and needlessly. 

Consequently, of course the news of the dogs' death deserved more airtime. It was not a tragedy or fair game. It was murder.

Six reasons why Iran cannot be explained in a Twitter feed

"The world’s attention is on Iran. But the rhetoric of reformists vs conservatives and students vs mullahs cannot capture the complexity of what is happening on the streets of Tehran," says Jalal Ghazi. 

This is perhaps the most intelligent and impartial analysis of the post-election crisis in Iran that I have seen so far.

The author gives six reasons "why the situation in Iran cannot be reduced to simplistic headlines or Twitter feeds".

Highly recommended reading. To read the full article, click here.